High Court called a 14-year-old's pregnancy 'consensual romance'. Supreme Court disagrees.

A 14-year-old girl gave birth. The High Court said it was 'consensual romance' and let the man go. The Supreme Court just tore up that order.

She was fourteen. He was twenty-five. She left her parents' home in May 2018. By the time the police registered an FIR (a written complaint that starts a police investigation), she was already pregnant. She gave birth to a daughter. Her mother filed the complaint. Then nothing happened for three years. The accused was finally arrested in December 2021.

The trial court convicted him under the POCSO Act (the law that protects children from sexual offences) and the Indian Penal Code. The Calcutta High Court looked at the same facts and reached a different conclusion. It called the relationship 'non-exploitative consensual' and set the man free.

The Supreme Court just called that judgment 'perverse' and 'legally unsustainable.' The bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka didn't stop there. It also examined why the state machinery failed the child victim at every step — from the moment she became pregnant to the moment the High Court let her abuser walk.

When a 14-year-old's pregnancy became 'romance'

The facts were not in dispute. A 25-year-old man had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl. She became pregnant. She gave birth. The trial court found the offences proved under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault — the most serious category of child sexual abuse) and Section 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC (rape of a victim under 16, and repeated rape).

The Calcutta High Court acknowledged that the offences were established. Then it did something unusual. It invoked its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution (the High Court's power to issue writs) read with Section 482 of the CrPC (the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process) and acquitted the accused anyway.

The High Court's reasoning: this was a 'non-exploitative consensual relationship.' The judgment was filled with personal opinions about adolescent sexuality and what the court described as the 'duties of female adolescents.' The Supreme Court would later describe these observations as 'irrelevant' and 'wholly impermissible.'

The trial court's judgment sat on the bench, its pages already yellowing, as the High Court read a different story into the same evidence. The girl held her daughter's hand outside the courtroom, waiting for a decision that would upend her fragile world.

The legal question that broke the case

The core issue was deceptively simple: can a High Court use its extraordinary constitutional powers to acquit a man convicted of raping a child, simply because the judge believes the relationship was consensual?

The answer, the Supreme Court said, is no — and the law is clear on why.

Under the Indian Penal Code, Section 375 contains a 'sixthly' clause: penetrative sexual intercourse with a woman under 18 years of age is rape, regardless of whether she consented. There is no exception for 'romantic relationships.' There is no exception for 'non-exploitative' situations. The age of the victim alone makes it rape.

The prosecution argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction to override this statutory bar. The defence, presumably, relied on the High Court's plenary powers to do 'complete justice.' The Supreme Court rejected that argument in unequivocal terms.

Justice Oka's bench was clear: "The High Court judgment is perverse and legally unsustainable." Those words hung in the air as the courtroom fell silent, the weight of the file pressing down on the table.

Why the High Court's 'romance' argument collapsed

The Supreme Court held that when offences of rape under Section 376 IPC and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act are proved, the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC to acquit the accused. These are not minor offences that can be quashed on grounds of consent or settlement.

The bench relied on the precedent set in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303, which established that serious offences like rape and POCSO offences cannot be quashed even if the accused and victim reach a settlement. The logic is straightforward: these crimes are not just against the individual victim — they are offences against society. The state prosecutes them, not the victim.

The Supreme Court also found the High Court judgment 'perverse' — a legal term meaning so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have reached that conclusion. A judgment, the bench noted, must contain only material relevant to deciding the controversy. It cannot contain the judge's personal opinions, advice to parties or the legislature, or irrelevant commentary on subjects outside the case.

The smell of old paper filled the Supreme Court chamber as the bench read through the High Court's observations — pages of personal musings that had no place in a criminal appeal.

The state's failure that the Supreme Court exposed

The Supreme Court didn't stop at reversing the High Court's acquittal. It examined the systemic failure that allowed this child to fall through every crack in the system.

Under Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act, when the police register an FIR involving a child victim, they must report the matter to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) within 24 hours. The CWC then has specific obligations under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Sections 29, 30, 36, 39, and 46 — to ensure the child's care, protection, rehabilitation, and social reintegration.

None of that happened here. The victim's parents abandoned her after she gave birth. She became dependent on the accused — the very man who had been convicted of raping her when she was a child. The state machinery that was supposed to step in and protect her simply didn't.

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance (acted on its own, without anyone filing a petition) of the case precisely because of this systemic failure. The court examined why the CWC did not exercise its powers, why the police did not report the matter within 24 hours, and why the child was left without any state protection.

The procedural journey had been long and broken. The FIR was registered on May 29, 2018, at a local police station in South 24 Parganas. The trial court — the Special Judge under the POCSO Act in Baruipur — convicted the accused. The Calcutta High Court Division Bench acquitted him on October 18, 2023. Then the Supreme Court stepped in, taking up the case as Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2023, along with Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2024, delivering its judgment on August 19, 2024, in the case In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents with State of West Bengal v. Accused, cited as 2024 INSC 614.

The provisions engaged were numerous: Section 6 of the POCSO Act (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault), Section 5(j)(ii) (aggravated penetrative sexual assault leading to pregnancy), Section 3 (penetrative sexual assault), and Section 19 (reporting of offences). From the IPC, Sections 375 (sixthly), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 376(3) (rape of victim under 16), 361 (kidnapping from lawful guardianship), 363 (punishment for kidnapping), and 366 (kidnapping to compel marriage) were all in play. The High Court had used Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC as its procedural vehicle. The Supreme Court interpreted these provisions strictly, finding that the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction was 'wholly impermissible' for serious offences.

What the Supreme Court actually ordered

The operative order was clear: the Calcutta High Court's acquittal under POCSO and Section 376 IPC was set aside. The acquittal under Sections 363 and 366 IPC (kidnapping and abduction) was upheld — meaning the man remains convicted for the sexual offences but not for the kidnapping charges.

But the real significance of this judgment lies in what it says about how courts should treat child victims. The Supreme Court has sent an unambiguous message: a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex with a 25-year-old, and no amount of judicial 'romance' language can change that.

THE PLAY: When a child under 18 is the victim of a sexual offence, no court can use its inherent powers to override the statutory bar on consent — the age of the victim alone determines whether the act is rape.

The girl who was left behind

The Supreme Court's judgment is a legal landmark, but it leaves an uncomfortable question hanging. The victim's parents abandoned her. She became dependent on the man who was convicted of raping her. The state failed to intervene. The High Court called it romance.

The Supreme Court corrected the legal error. But the girl — now older, with a child of her own — was never protected when it mattered most. The courtroom was empty by the time the order was read, the silence broken only by the rustle of papers being filed away.